The new std.process is ready for review

1100110 0b1100110 at gmail.com
Sun Feb 24 00:07:02 PST 2013


On 02/23/2013 08:39 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 05:32:08PM -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 23, 2013 20:14:14 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 20:07:43 -0500, Jonathan M Davis<jmdavisProg at gmx.com>
>>> wrote:
> [...]
>>>> We might be able to remove std.process eventually and then rename
>>>> std.process2 to std.process (leaving std.process2.d to import
>>>> std.process), but Walter (and to some extent Andrei) seems to be
>>>> very much in favor of leaving stuff around permanently. It's
>>>> likely that std.process will be deprecated (which now defaults to
>>>> warning about it rather than giving an error) and eventually
>>>> undocumented, but actually killing it off may take a bit of doing
>>>> given Walter's attitude about code breakage. He seems to be
>>>> perfectly fine with leaving around old, dead code on the
>>>> off-chance that some older code is using it and would break if it
>>>> were removed.
>>>
>>> I don't see std.date around anymore...
>>
>> Yes. I killed it, but Walter has never liked that sort of thing and
>> has been increasingly outspoken about it, and Andrei seems to be
>> jumping on that bandwagon. For instance, IIRC, they both griped about
>> actually removing the deprecated functions from std.string. I'd _very_
>> much like to get rid of them outright, since they clutter the code and
>> actually were generating errors when used until recently (since they
>> were deprecated before the changes to deprecated). Keeping them around
>> is just plain harmful IMHO, and I may yet manage to kill them off, but
>> they don't seem to like the idea, and I fully expect a similar
>> attitude towards something like std.process. Unfortunately, while
>> replacing old solutions with new, better solutions seems to be fine,
>> it doesn't seem to be okay to actually get rid of the old ones
>> anymore.
> [...]
>
> Well, std.regexp got lucky, in that the new module has a subtly
> different name std.regex, so we can just eventually stop documenting
> std.regexp but leave it in the codebase for whatever old code that uses
> it to continue working. Ditto with the upcoming std.io to replace
> std.stdio.
>
> But I can't think of any better name for the new std.process. :-( I'd
> suggest std.proc, but I'm pretty sure it will get shot down as it's too
> short and ambiguous (it could be misinterpreted as std.procedure for
> example).
>
> Alternatively, I would push for renaming the old std.process to
> something like old.process (or something else), which is much less of a
> breakage than deleting it from Phobos outright -- existing code just
> need to have their imports fixed and will continue working, whereas
> deleting the module outright leaves existing code with no recourse but
> to potentially rewrite from scratch. This may be easier to convince
> Walter&  Andrei on, than outright killing old deprecated modules.
>
>
> T
>
+1


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list